BHAGYOMAL Vs. R S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON dated 11.1.1990 notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why this petition be not admitted and allowed. Hence, the matter has come up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The fact in this case are not disputed. The petitioner was employed on the post of conductor under respondent No. 1 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. He entered in service on 19.4.71. The bus of the petitioner was checked on 2.3.1981 by the Checking Staff of the Corporation. Four passengers were found without ticket in the bus; all the four passengers were student and had declined to pay fare to the petitioner, yet the petitioner allowed the bus to proceed towards its destination. On the basis of inspection report, a charge - sheet was served on the petitioner and enquiry was made against the petitioner and disciplinary Authority terminated the service of the petitioner vide order Annex.3. Petitioner took an appeal before Appellate Authority on administrative side. The appeal was dismissed. Consequently, matter was taken before Conciliation Officer. Eventually, there was no conciliation and the appropriate government referred the matter to the Court of Industrial Tribunal and Labour Judge, Jodhpur. The question under reference was whether termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 31.7.82 was proper and legal? After hearing both the sides, the learned Judge of the Tribunal found that a proper enquiry had been made against the petitioner. He however, found that punishment meted out to the petitioner was disproportionate to his guilt. Learned Judge, therefore directed reinstatement of the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1992, the date of which his services were terminated. He, however, directed that the two grade increments of the petitioner may be stopped with commulative effect. He also directed that the period during which the petitioner was out of employment should be treated as leave without pay. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioner has come to this Court .

(2.) SHRI Mridul appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that penalty awarded to the petitioner is excessive because it has come in the evidence of Harish Mathur, Checking Officer that the four passengers from whom fare could not be collected were students and they had declined to pay fare to the petitioner. The only default of the petitioner was that he allowed the bus to proceed towards its destination. He, therefore, submits that withholding of two grade increments with commulative effect is excessive and disproportionate. His next contention is that treating entire period as leave from 31.7.82 to 23.12.88, the date of which award was without pay passed, is also harsh.

(3.) SO far as, the direction treating period intervening the removal and reinstatment from service as leave without pay is concerned it also appears to be harsh and excessive. In the circumstances of the case, learned Counsel for R.S.R.T.C. submits that during this long period, petitioner must have remained under gainful employment elsewhere and in case, the Court strikes down the aforesaid direction. The R.S.R.T.C. may be permitted to held the enquiry regarding the fact that petitioner remained in gainful employment during the aforesaid period. In my opinion this submission appears to be proper.